Zelensky trying to fast track NATO membership or get security guarantees

I would say Zelensky isn't getting the cooperation he thought he would from his "NATO" partners. I guess the stark reality hit when Biden said no troops to Ukraine, though we will defend current NATO territory. ergo Ukraine isn't NATO

liveuamap.com...

Zelensky: “Everyone saying there is some distance… between Ukraine and NATO we need to walk. All we are saying, tell us how much time does it take to complete this distance? This is measured not just in hours, this is measured in human life of Ukrainians.”

liveuamap.com...

Asked what his interpretation is of Putin's intent towards his country and whether he thinks the Russian President will invade, the Ukrainian President says: "I do not know what the President of the Russian Federation wants. That is why I propose to meet"

liveuamap.com...
an hour agoSource
Ukraine's president acknowledges, likely for the first time, threat of a full-scale Russian invasion

Ukrainian President says Kyiv wants a clear timeframe for NATO membership

2 hours ago - 48°8′N 11°35′E
Ukraine President @ZelenskyyUa: We gave up 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in 1994 in the Budapest Memorandum. Signed by US, UK, Russia, Ukraine. But we haven't gotten the security we were promised then. If Ukraine's security is not assured today, who will be next? It won't end with us

liveuamap.com...

a reply to: putnam6

This is literally the definition of “Caught between a rock and a hard place”, or insert any bad cliche you want, but the end result will be we are screwed with WW3 looming.
So this guy Zelensky wishes he still had nuclear weapons and that might have deterred Putin from invading but maybe it wouldn’t.
I am not sure I would risk potential WW3 over Ukraine.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: putnam6

This is literally the definition of “Caught between a rock and a hard place”, or insert any bad cliche you want, but the end result will be we are screwed with WW3 looming.
So this guy Zelensky wishes he still had nuclear weapons and that might have deterred Putin from invading but maybe it wouldn’t.
I am not sure I would risk potential WW3 over Ukraine.

Exactly... but here we are

a reply to: putnam6

Zelensky will neither get security guarantees nor NATO membership. Either of which could actually kick off a long protracted war between large nuclear-armed nations. To what end? Russia won't dare attack a NATO member country unless provoked.

The best Zelensky can hope for is that Russia doesn't encroach farther on Ukraine's territory and that Putin moves the troops back to their permanent posts.

What one must truly ask oneself is why Putin is making all this fuss over Ukraine.
It aint NATO. Is Putin worried about NATO on his doorstep? NO. Up to yet NATO has never been an aggressor, only a defender and IF, that's if with big letters, if it ever came to a missile war Ukraine is a pimple between Russia and NATO countries.
Does Putin want the Ukraine back under Russian jurisdiction? I think that is the reason as the Ukraine has been threatening to cut the Russian pipelines into the EU. That argument was not over Ukraine v Russia but Ukraine wanting the EU to take all their foreign migrants off their hands.
So in my mind the Ukrainians (trying to blackmail the EU) were asking for trouble saying they were going to cut Russian income. So unless the Ukrainians agree to stop using the pipelines as a bargaining chip, the Russian will want full control over their assets and if that means taking over Ukraine so be it.
The Ukrainians have poked the Russian bear now they are crying "help us". it has literally nothing to do with NATO or anyone else. The Ukrainians have made their bed so let them lie in it.

No matter what anybody says 150,000 troops wasn't gonna be enough to totally invade and occupy a country of 41 million people.

Again the US and coalition forces went it against Iraq with 177,000 troops and Iraq had about 25 million people.

Russia will do hit and run raids, harassment, and intelligence gathering, and maybe go after those eastern areas at most.

a reply to: putnam6

I don't think NATO should accept it.

There's a reason the prerequisite for membership is that you have no ongoing disputes so that all members don't get forced into a war.

It makes it more attractive to be a NATO member if you're only backing countries who became members without war looming.

This would set a precedent that none of the rules matter.

a reply to: crayzeed

I think this is an excellent point of view which leaves open the gaping question of ''if Ukraine was so important to NATO defense against Russian encroachment why has it not been admitted from the start.'' I admit to ignorance over that period of recent history in that area so very possibly my question stems only from that though it does seem that Ukraine was no more than a tasty tid-bit left dangling for the Russian maw to chew up whenever it got around to it.

originally posted by: putnam6

the Ukrainian President says: "I do not know what the President of the Russian Federation wants. That is why I propose to meet"

The option to start implementing the Minsk agreements (many years after they were signed) does not occur to him?

At least Biden doesn't suck Putin's **** like Trump

Looks like Zelensky is starting to see Biden wants war in Ukraine in order to decouple Russian energy companies from supplying gas to europe.
He may think joining NATO will prevent this-But Putin has alreeady stated this is a red line,and would lead to war.

Seems like an impossible situation for Ukraine,but when the dark forces who are the real rulers of the world decide they want a war,there is very little any government or alliance can do to stop them.

Evil is winning and has infiltrated all governments and institutions.

What a world,so potentially beautiful but no-we get this horror show instead.

originally posted by: darkbake
At least Biden doesn't suck Putin's **** like Trump

Lame trope to keep the Russiagate narrative alive.

Glenn Greenwald's piece on how Trump was harder on russia than Obama

We also took out 100+ Russian mercenaries in Syria while Trump was president.

Biden isn't being "hard" on Russia. He said our military won't get involved if they invade, which for the record I agree with.

But the narrative Biden is harder on Putin than Trump is just baseless.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: putnam6

I don't think NATO should accept it.

There's a reason the prerequisite for membership is that you have no ongoing disputes so that all members don't get forced into a war.

It makes it more attractive to be a NATO member if you're only backing countries who became members without war looming.

This would set a precedent that none of the rules matter.

I agree 100%, honestly it might be time to re-examine the NATO agreement,

I was reading elsewhere and somebody brought up a very good point about all of this, and where it fits in the big picture.

Do we really want to face China looming over Taiwan while Biden and company are deeking around in Ukraine? If China and Taiwan go hot, perhaps we may need an ally in Russia instead of an enemy.

That's the reality if we push Russia and China together we would have problems, do we want to face that with Biden as CINC?

In conventional warfare, the US would be at an extreme disadvantage with a 2 front war, especially if China and Russia could coordinate their moves. Again conventionally we couldn't completely stop an invasion by China or Russia initially any way all we got is threats and sanctions

He’s to busy with corporate **** up his ***, showering with his daughter and praising his crack head son lol.

a reply to: darkbake

a reply to: putnam6

I doubt anyone will get in the way of China taking Taiwan.

The question is do they think it would be more beneficial to take Taiwan and rule it under the CCP when it's so successful on its own.

They essentially control it by proxy now, but if they decide to take it, it would be hard for anyone to morally position themselves to intervene and even harder to form a coalition.

If China started getting fiesty with the region (aside from Hong Kong and Taiwan), I could totally see Russia aligning with the west.

Russia is culturally more in line with the west than China. And China doesn't have a history of longstanding alliances. Even if Russia goes into Ukraine, I don't think it will completely alienate them from the west should the geopolitical table need some more friends against China.

a reply to: putnam6

Looks like Zelensky is looking like a puppet.

originally posted by: darkbake
At least Biden doesn't suck Putin's **** like Trump

No,he prefers little girls.But only white and asian kids.

originally posted by: darkbake
At least Biden doesn't suck Putin's **** like Trump

I bet if Putin had a full head of hair ole Joe would sneak a sniff

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: putnam6

I doubt anyone will get in the way of China taking Taiwan.

The question is do they think it would be more beneficial to take Taiwan and rule it under the CCP when it's so successful on its own.

They essentially control it by proxy now, but if they decide to take it, it would be hard for anyone to morally position themselves to intervene and even harder to form a coalition.

If China started getting fiesty with the region (aside from Hong Kong and Taiwan), I could totally see Russia aligning with the west.

Russia is culturally more in line with the west than China. And China doesn't have a history of longstanding alliances. Even if Russia goes into Ukraine, I don't think it will completely alienate them from the west should the geopolitical table need some more friends against China.

Sounds completely logical and FWIW I hope it is true, but I must ask, then why is the media obsessed with the possibility?

It's not like it's been slow news-wise, and they are searching for stories, China/Taiwan is definitely a hot topic in all those "think tanks" the left is so fond of listening to.

Is it because our media is owned by China?

a reply to: putnam6

China and Taiwan have a huge amount of leverage over the US. Debt held, assets owned stateside, but the biggest IMO is their monopoly on rare earth metals and chip manufacturing. Taiwan does a vast majority of advanced chip manufacturing. The reason is because of the close proximity to all the source materials in China just a skip away.

But, I think it would take as much resources intervening as it would to just either set up shop domestically, or with a more stable ally.

The problem is publicly traded companies are legally bound to fiduciary responsibility. Meaning they have to make the best decisions for their shareholders, and this almost always is in the context of short term decisions. That's how our lopsided relationship with China/Taiwan started. They used to be dirt cheep and now they're the only act in town.

I don't see any of our big corporations moving shop until it's too late.